## Facts

- In May 1981, Marvin K. Kaiser was accused of having sexual intercourse with his 16-year-old stepdaughter.
- The stepdaughter reported that Kaiser had raped her.
- Law-enforcement officers advised Kaiser of his Miranda rights during their contacts with him.
- Kaiser met with an attorney after receiving Miranda warnings; despite his attorney’s instruction, Kaiser chose to waive his rights and speak with police.
- Kaiser gave a recorded statement confessing to sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter and indicating it was against her will.
- The State charged Kaiser with incest under Washington’s incest statute, RCW 9A.64.020, which treated a stepchild under 18 as within the prohibited family relationship.
- At trial, Kaiser denied that intercourse occurred and claimed he confessed to avoid publicity and protect his family.
- The stepdaughter testified that sexual intercourse occurred, though her testimony was unclear when questioned about penetration.
- The stepdaughter’s boyfriend testified that she told him Kaiser had raped her.
- The trial court admitted Kaiser’s confession, found him guilty of incest, and entered judgment.
- Kaiser appealed, challenging the confession, the sufficiency of the evidence of “sexual intercourse,” and the constitutionality of the incest statute under equal protection.

## Issues

1. Whether Kaiser’s waiver of Miranda rights and ensuing confession were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, making the confession admissible.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove “sexual intercourse” (including penetration) beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether testimony that the stepdaughter disclosed the assault to her boyfriend was improperly admitted.
4. Whether RCW 9A.64.020 violated equal protection by (a) criminalizing intercourse with a stepchild under 18 based on affinity rather than blood relation and (b) treating sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old stepchild as incest while other statutes used a different age threshold.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed Kaiser’s conviction.
- The court held the State met its burden to show Kaiser knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that the confession was properly admitted, including in light of his opportunity to consult with counsel before he chose to speak.
- The court held the evidence, including Kaiser’s confession and the stepdaughter’s testimony, was sufficient for a trier of fact to find sexual intercourse proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court rejected the evidentiary challenge to the boyfriend’s testimony about the stepdaughter’s disclosure and upheld its admission as permitted under Washington law governing such disclosures in sexual offense cases.
- The court held RCW 9A.64.020 did not violate equal protection; applying the statute to a stepfather and stepdaughter under 18 was rationally related to legitimate state interests.

## Legal Principles

- The State bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant’s Miranda waiver and custodial statement were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- A defendant who has been advised of Miranda rights and given an opportunity to consult counsel may still validly waive those rights and speak; the voluntariness question turns on whether the defendant’s decision was the product of free choice rather than coercion.
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Proof of “sexual intercourse” may be established through the combined force of direct testimony and a defendant’s admissions; a factfinder may draw reasonable inferences about penetration from the record as a whole.
- Testimony that a victim disclosed a sexual assault to another person may be admissible under Washington evidentiary rules for limited, recognized purposes in sexual offense prosecutions, subject to the trial court’s control of its use.
- Under rational-basis review, a criminal statute does not violate equal protection if its classifications are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests; Washington’s incest statute may cover step-relationships involving minors to address family integrity and the risk of abuse of parental authority, and the Legislature may draw age lines in this area without violating equal protection.

## Conclusion

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Kaiser’s incest conviction, holding that his post-warning waiver and confession were voluntary and admissible, the trial evidence was sufficient to prove sexual intercourse, the challenged disclosure testimony was properly admitted, and RCW 9A.64.020’s application to stepchildren under 18 survived equal protection review.


State v. Marvin Kaiser, 663 P.2d 839, 34 Wash. App. 599 (1983)